The Hunger Games (1 Viewer)

[Chaka]

Am I the only one that thinks the title of the book/movie is pretty dumb/uninspired?

Smoovy and Marvin will be sending you an invitation to join them in their tree house soon.

 

[culdeus]

Am I the only one that thinks the title of the book/movie is pretty dumb/uninspired?

Smoovy and Marvin will be sending you an invitation to join them in their tree house soon.

I had never heard of this thing until the weekend. Why is it the hunger games? Media would have you believe it is a hot-ish chick running around shooting people with a bow.

 

[The Gator]

Am I the only one that thinks the title of the book/movie is pretty dumb/uninspired?

Smoovy and Marvin will be sending you an invitation to join them in their tree house soon.

I had never heard of this thing until the weekend. Why is it the hunger games? Media would have you believe it is a hot-ish chick running around shooting people with a bow.

Skyrim Games?

 

[Marvin]

Am I the only one that thinks the title of the book/movie is pretty dumb/uninspired?

Smoovy and Marvin will be sending you an invitation to join them in their tree house soon.

He's just complaining about the title. He needs to step it up if he wants in the treehouse.

 

[Sand]

Am I the only one that thinks the title of the book/movie is pretty dumb/uninspired?

Smoovy and Marvin will be sending you an invitation to join them in their tree house soon.

I had never heard of this thing until the weekend. Why is it the hunger games? Media would have you believe it is a hot-ish chick running around shooting people with a bow.

Of course they would. Hot chicks doing hot chick things brings in ticket revenue. The Games themselves as described in the books can last weeks, if memory serves, and natural causes was a leading cause of death. In addition, one of the setting setups that the author went into was the fabulous wealth of the ruling class and the starvation issues of the districts. (this is actually done very well in the movie, IMO).

 

[Sweet J]

For those who said that they were disappointed by the violence/action in the movie: The Washington Post review that I read indicated that the director was in a tough spot because one of the themes of the book was the rejection of the colluseum/voyeristic view of violence. It's hard for a movie to reject the glorification of violence while at the same time making a violent film. So what it sounds like the movie lost (haven't seen it myself yet) was some of the more violent scenes from the book. It certainly is a tough line to walk.

I'm not following. One of the themes of the book was a rejection of violence yet it had scenes that were violent, but the movie can't do the same?

I dunno. I'd have to post the quote from the review and I'm kind of lazy at the moment. My thought it that we hear a lot about gratuitous violence in movies/tv all the time, not really in books. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, of course, but I've never really thought about it that way.Plus, it seems like it would be easy to condemn, in writing, gratuitous violence that occurs in the pages of a book. A little harder to produce a movie about gratuitously violent movies.

 

[Sweet J]

For those who said that they were disappointed by the violence/action in the movie: The Washington Post review that I read indicated that the director was in a tough spot because one of the themes of the book was the rejection of the colluseum/voyeristic view of violence. It's hard for a movie to reject the glorification of violence while at the same time making a violent film. So what it sounds like the movie lost (haven't seen it myself yet) was some of the more violent scenes from the book. It certainly is a tough line to walk.

Translation. "If we made the movie that was described in the book we could have lost a lot of money due to the graphic violence."

Yes, that would be a translation if a stupid person were translating it.

 

[Sweet J]

For those who said that they were disappointed by the violence/action in the movie: The Washington Post review that I read indicated that the director was in a tough spot because one of the themes of the book was the rejection of the colluseum/voyeristic view of violence. It's hard for a movie to reject the glorification of violence while at the same time making a violent film. So what it sounds like the movie lost (haven't seen it myself yet) was some of the more violent scenes from the book. It certainly is a tough line to walk.

I'm not following. One of the themes of the book was a rejection of violence yet it had scenes that were violent, but the movie can't do the same?

Yeah I don't see how different the spot the director was in compared to the author. Having read the book and seen the movie I didn't think the movie compromised much on violence.

This is what the reviewer actually wrote. I'm not sure my paraphrasing did it justice:

One of the trickier aspects of bringing “The Hunger Games” to the screen is to avoid indulging in the very voyeuristic spectacle the story is supposed to be condemning. Ross — whose films include such anodyne, mainstream fare as “Seabiscuit” and “Pleasantville” — judiciously sidesteps the most barbaric aspects of Collins’s tale, saving it from becoming a Scholastic version of Cormac McCarthy at his most ruthless. Still, there’s no escaping the depravity of Collins’s essential premise: The number of young people who die pitiless deaths could populate the cast of “Glee,” but only one possesses real moral weight, with Katniss or the audience.

 

[Chaka]

For those who said that they were disappointed by the violence/action in the movie: The Washington Post review that I read indicated that the director was in a tough spot because one of the themes of the book was the rejection of the colluseum/voyeristic view of violence. It's hard for a movie to reject the glorification of violence while at the same time making a violent film. So what it sounds like the movie lost (haven't seen it myself yet) was some of the more violent scenes from the book. It certainly is a tough line to walk.

Translation. "If we made the movie that was described in the book we could have lost a lot of money due to the graphic violence."

Yes, that would be a translation if a stupid person were translating it.

I disagree. I am quite certain that getting a PG-13 rating was very important to the studio.

 

[chet]

My almost 7-yo son and his friend loved it. My wife said I made a bad parenting decision.

 

[Psychopav]

My almost 7-yo son and his friend loved it. My wife said I made a bad parenting decision.

I agree.Be honest. Didn't you think maybe you were making a mistake during a particularly gruesome scene or two?

 

[Mario Kart]

Spoiler

The medicine for Peeta's wound came in a syringe instead of a salve.Katniss drugged Peeta so she could leave the cave.Rue was speared while still in the net.My daughter understand the time issue, and knows that not every detail can be in a movie, but she didn't get the change on these.

Spoiler

My ideas as to why each was cut out or shortened:- a salve does not "promote" drug use. I can see some adults claiming drug use if a syringe was used. Maybe better to err on the side of caution. Also, Katniss had a salve medicine to help with her burns so kids may translate that a salve = medicine / something to help.- When Katniss left the cave, she was sent another parachute from her sponsors. But, in the book and movie, she had a parachute a few moments earlier. Product of redundancy maybe. Also, it was evident Peeta did not want her to go and they showed Peeta getting worse. The events in the book were redundant.- Rue on the ground with Katniss "saving" her showed Katniss was there for her, to help. Had she been speared in the net, the viewer would possibly feel that Katniss did not care that much given the following funeral, painful memories of remorse from Katniss. Gives the viewer hope that, at least, Katniss sees this more as murder and a bad thing rather than normalcy as in the Districts who breed the tributes.- as far as Madge, the mayor's daughter not giving her the pin, the movie would have had to introduce the daughter, the mayor as well, and each does no play a significant role in this book. They don't play a big role in the second but some significant stuff happens with each in book two. Probably did not want to have to cast these characters and hold them over for the following movies.Something the viewer will not get from the movie is that Katniss and Gale spend a lot of time together hunting and selling their finds to all the people in the town... the mayor, people at the Hob, neighbors and especially the Peacekeepers (the Capitol police) in town. Katniss is one of the towns pride and joy and not just her families. I don't think the viewer would get this.

 

[chet]

My almost 7-yo son and his friend loved it. My wife said I made a bad parenting decision.

I agree.Be honest. Didn't you think maybe you were making a mistake during a particularly gruesome scene or two?

Yes.

 

[GoFishTN]

For those who said that they were disappointed by the violence/action in the movie: The Washington Post review that I read indicated that the director was in a tough spot because one of the themes of the book was the rejection of the colluseum/voyeristic view of violence. It's hard for a movie to reject the glorification of violence while at the same time making a violent film. So what it sounds like the movie lost (haven't seen it myself yet) was some of the more violent scenes from the book. It certainly is a tough line to walk.

Translation. "If we made the movie that was described in the book we could have lost a lot of money due to the graphic violence."

Yes, that would be a translation if a stupid person were translating it.

I disagree. I am quite certain that getting a PG-13 rating was very important to the studio.

According to IMDB it got a PG in Canada. I really don't see many movies, but I was expecting more violence and gore with a PG-13 rating. Maybe I am more desensitized than I thought.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

Am I the only one that thinks the title of the book/movie is pretty dumb/uninspired?

Smoovy and Marvin will be sending you an invitation to join them in their tree house soon.

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Oh my God, you are so funny! And clever!!! Are you a professional standup comedian? You should be. And so clever, too.

 

[Frostillicus]

Ooof. Seems like there are A LOT of racist HG fans.

That is awesome. I love dummies.

 

[Chaka]

Am I the only one that thinks the title of the book/movie is pretty dumb/uninspired?

Smoovy and Marvin will be sending you an invitation to join them in their tree house soon.

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Oh my God, you are so funny! And clever!!! Are you a professional standup comedian? You should be. And so clever, too.

Your continued displays of superior maturity are a credit to all humanity.

 

[Frostillicus]

Spoiler

The medicine for Peeta's wound came in a syringe instead of a salve.Katniss drugged Peeta so she could leave the cave.Rue was speared while still in the net.My daughter understand the time issue, and knows that not every detail can be in a movie, but she didn't get the change on these.

Spoiler

My ideas as to why each was cut out or shortened:- a salve does not "promote" drug use. I can see some adults claiming drug use if a syringe was used. Maybe better to err on the side of caution. Also, Katniss had a salve medicine to help with her burns so kids may translate that a salve = medicine / something to help.- When Katniss left the cave, she was sent another parachute from her sponsors. But, in the book and movie, she had a parachute a few moments earlier. Product of redundancy maybe. Also, it was evident Peeta did not want her to go and they showed Peeta getting worse. The events in the book were redundant.- Rue on the ground with Katniss "saving" her showed Katniss was there for her, to help. Had she been speared in the net, the viewer would possibly feel that Katniss did not care that much given the following funeral, painful memories of remorse from Katniss. Gives the viewer hope that, at least, Katniss sees this more as murder and a bad thing rather than normalcy as in the Districts who breed the tributes.- as far as Madge, the mayor's daughter not giving her the pin, the movie would have had to introduce the daughter, the mayor as well, and each does no play a significant role in this book. They don't play a big role in the second but some significant stuff happens with each in book two. Probably did not want to have to cast these characters and hold them over for the following movies.Something the viewer will not get from the movie is that Katniss and Gale spend a lot of time together hunting and selling their finds to all the people in the town... the mayor, people at the Hob, neighbors and especially the Peacekeepers (the Capitol police) in town. Katniss is one of the towns pride and joy and not just her families. I don't think the viewer would get this.

So it's ok to make changes to this one, but if you change one tiny thing from the book to the movie when it comes to Harry Potter it's completely ruined? Because, and correct me if I'm wrong, you said you hoped you were still alive in 30 years when they'd redo the Harry Potter movies and "do them right."

 

[Mario Kart]

Spoiler

The medicine for Peeta's wound came in a syringe instead of a salve.Katniss drugged Peeta so she could leave the cave.Rue was speared while still in the net.My daughter understand the time issue, and knows that not every detail can be in a movie, but she didn't get the change on these.

Spoiler

My ideas as to why each was cut out or shortened:- a salve does not "promote" drug use. I can see some adults claiming drug use if a syringe was used. Maybe better to err on the side of caution. Also, Katniss had a salve medicine to help with her burns so kids may translate that a salve = medicine / something to help.- When Katniss left the cave, she was sent another parachute from her sponsors. But, in the book and movie, she had a parachute a few moments earlier. Product of redundancy maybe. Also, it was evident Peeta did not want her to go and they showed Peeta getting worse. The events in the book were redundant.- Rue on the ground with Katniss "saving" her showed Katniss was there for her, to help. Had she been speared in the net, the viewer would possibly feel that Katniss did not care that much given the following funeral, painful memories of remorse from Katniss. Gives the viewer hope that, at least, Katniss sees this more as murder and a bad thing rather than normalcy as in the Districts who breed the tributes.- as far as Madge, the mayor's daughter not giving her the pin, the movie would have had to introduce the daughter, the mayor as well, and each does no play a significant role in this book. They don't play a big role in the second but some significant stuff happens with each in book two. Probably did not want to have to cast these characters and hold them over for the following movies.Something the viewer will not get from the movie is that Katniss and Gale spend a lot of time together hunting and selling their finds to all the people in the town... the mayor, people at the Hob, neighbors and especially the Peacekeepers (the Capitol police) in town. Katniss is one of the towns pride and joy and not just her families. I don't think the viewer would get this.

So it's ok to make changes to this one, but if you change one tiny thing from the book to the movie when it comes to Harry Potter it's completely ruined? Because, and correct me if I'm wrong, you said you hoped you were still alive in 30 years when they'd redo the Harry Potter movies and "do them right."Not sure I follow. The contex of the original post was wondering about the stuff in the spoiler tag. I attempted to explain "why" they were done. Never excused them. As far as Potter goes, there was much more detail in those books that could have been explained to the casual viewer. Azkaban, Goblet and Half-Blood are unwatchable. The ending to Hallows is a disaster as well.

 

[Frostillicus]

Spoiler

The medicine for Peeta's wound came in a syringe instead of a salve.Katniss drugged Peeta so she could leave the cave.Rue was speared while still in the net.My daughter understand the time issue, and knows that not every detail can be in a movie, but she didn't get the change on these.

Spoiler

My ideas as to why each was cut out or shortened:- a salve does not "promote" drug use. I can see some adults claiming drug use if a syringe was used. Maybe better to err on the side of caution. Also, Katniss had a salve medicine to help with her burns so kids may translate that a salve = medicine / something to help.- When Katniss left the cave, she was sent another parachute from her sponsors. But, in the book and movie, she had a parachute a few moments earlier. Product of redundancy maybe. Also, it was evident Peeta did not want her to go and they showed Peeta getting worse. The events in the book were redundant.- Rue on the ground with Katniss "saving" her showed Katniss was there for her, to help. Had she been speared in the net, the viewer would possibly feel that Katniss did not care that much given the following funeral, painful memories of remorse from Katniss. Gives the viewer hope that, at least, Katniss sees this more as murder and a bad thing rather than normalcy as in the Districts who breed the tributes.- as far as Madge, the mayor's daughter not giving her the pin, the movie would have had to introduce the daughter, the mayor as well, and each does no play a significant role in this book. They don't play a big role in the second but some significant stuff happens with each in book two. Probably did not want to have to cast these characters and hold them over for the following movies.Something the viewer will not get from the movie is that Katniss and Gale spend a lot of time together hunting and selling their finds to all the people in the town... the mayor, people at the Hob, neighbors and especially the Peacekeepers (the Capitol police) in town. Katniss is one of the towns pride and joy and not just her families. I don't think the viewer would get this.

So it's ok to make changes to this one, but if you change one tiny thing from the book to the movie when it comes to Harry Potter it's completely ruined? Because, and correct me if I'm wrong, you said you hoped you were still alive in 30 years when they'd redo the Harry Potter movies and "do them right."Not sure I follow. The contex of the original post was wondering about the stuff in the spoiler tag. I attempted to explain "why" they were done. Never excused them. As far as Potter goes, there was much more detail in those books that could have been explained to the casual viewer. Azkaban, Goblet and Half-Blood are unwatchable. The ending to Hallows is a disaster as well.Are you as mad at this one as you are at Harry Potter.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

Am I the only one that thinks the title of the book/movie is pretty dumb/uninspired?

Smoovy and Marvin will be sending you an invitation to join them in their tree house soon.

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Oh my God, you are so funny! And clever!!! Are you a professional standup comedian? You should be. And so clever, too.

Your continued displays of superior maturity are a credit to all humanity.

You've really come across as mature, Reading Rainbow.

 

[Chaka]

Am I the only one that thinks the title of the book/movie is pretty dumb/uninspired?

Smoovy and Marvin will be sending you an invitation to join them in their tree house soon.

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Oh my God, you are so funny! And clever!!! Are you a professional standup comedian? You should be. And so clever, too.

Your continued displays of superior maturity are a credit to all humanity.

You've really come across as mature, Reading Rainbow.

Have you been following this thread at all?

 

[Mario Kart]

Are you as mad at this one as you are at Harry Potter.

Mad is not the correct adjective. I'm upset at Warner Bros. for the smallest amount of effort they put forward to completely maximize their profits. They put minimal effort into the movies and it shows. The amount of details left out, story, overall is an abomination to any fan of the books.The Hunger Games has a small amount of detail in it compared to Potter. Needless to say, the movie was still a decent length with minimal details cut out. The only details cut out were casting and some redundant episodes. The biggest beef would be the beginning as they could have portrayed Katniss just a little different however the following screenplays, since the books are completed, unlike Potter, might resolve some of this. Not sure if you read these books but they are quite different compared to Potter, no?

 

[Marvin]

Are you as mad at this one as you are at Harry Potter.

Mad is not the correct adjective. I'm upset at Warner Bros. for the smallest amount of effort they put forward to completely maximize their profits. They put minimal effort into the movies and it shows. The amount of details left out, story, overall is an abomination to any fan of the books.The Hunger Games has a small amount of detail in it compared to Potter. Needless to say, the movie was still a decent length with minimal details cut out. The only details cut out were casting and some redundant episodes. The biggest beef would be the beginning as they could have portrayed Katniss just a little different however the following screenplays, since the books are completed, unlike Potter, might resolve some of this. Not sure if you read these books but they are quite different compared to Potter, no?

Dude, how old are you?

 

[Frostillicus]

Are you as mad at this one as you are at Harry Potter.

Mad is not the correct adjective. I'm upset at Warner Bros. for the smallest amount of effort they put forward to completely maximize their profits. They put minimal effort into the movies and it shows. The amount of details left out, story, overall is an abomination to any fan of the books.The Hunger Games has a small amount of detail in it compared to Potter. Needless to say, the movie was still a decent length with minimal details cut out. The only details cut out were casting and some redundant episodes. The biggest beef would be the beginning as they could have portrayed Katniss just a little different however the following screenplays, since the books are completed, unlike Potter, might resolve some of this. Not sure if you read these books but they are quite different compared to Potter, no?

Read both, watched every Potter movie and will see Hunger Games on Wednesday. I was just asking because I think your opinion on the Potter movies is ridiculous and wanted to see your thoughts on this one.

 

[Marvin]

Et tu, Frosty?

 

[SmoovySmoov]

Am I the only one that thinks the title of the book/movie is pretty dumb/uninspired?

Smoovy and Marvin will be sending you an invitation to join them in their tree house soon.

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Oh my God, you are so funny! And clever!!! Are you a professional standup comedian? You should be. And so clever, too.

Your continued displays of superior maturity are a credit to all humanity.

You've really come across as mature, Reading Rainbow.

Have you been following this thread at all?

Nah. Too many words.

 

[Frostillicus]

Et tu, Frosty?

Say what now?

 

[shader]

Finally saw the movie last night.

I have mixed feelings.

Once again, a movie based on a book I really enjoyed disappointed a little bit. But that is the nature of these things. A great book makes a movie seem a little cheesy, and (as was mentioned earlier in the thread) like a cliffs notes version of it.

The movie did bring things to life, and in many ways it was fascinating. I loved seeing the scenes of district 12. But there were not near enough. I would have liked to have seen more screen-time there. They rushed the movie to the games, and then even the games seemed quick. That being said, I never took my eyes off the screen. I feel the way it was promoted made some of it seem cheesy, like the lines "may the odds be ever in your favor". Just such an over-promotion of that line that I cringed every time it was used.

I think it all goes back to whether it's better to read a book before you watch a movie. Because whichever route you take, you lose a little bit of the fun in the latter activity.

I always relate it to the Matrix. The Matrix blew me away with the story (and the special effects). Would I have been as blown away if I already read the book? No.

As good as the Game of Thrones series is, I have to think people watching it without having read the books are going to enjoy it a little bit more. There are some upcoming events in future seasons that will knock the socks off of non-readers. For the readers, we'll be like "eh, they did that pretty good", or "that was a great scene". But the shock value is gone.

Another good example are the Star Wars prequels. There were other reasons why the prequels weren't as good as the sequels. But one big reason is that there was no mystery. We went into three huge movies without hardly any suspense. We basically knew what was going to happen the whole time.

So for me, Hunger Games was a fun experience, but I wasn't blown away.

I think the only way to do the book justice would be to have a LOTR 3 and a half hour epic movie. But then they probably wouldn't have made 150 million dollars.

All in all though, a very solid flick, and I thought Lawrence did nail Katniss Everdeen.

 

[Fennis]

Finally saw the movie last night.

I have mixed feelings.

Once again, a movie based on a book I really enjoyed disappointed a little bit. But that is the nature of these things. A great book makes a movie seem a little cheesy, and (as was mentioned earlier in the thread) like a cliffs notes version of it.

The movie did bring things to life, and in many ways it was fascinating. I loved seeing the scenes of district 12. But there were not near enough. I would have liked to have seen more screen-time there. They rushed the movie to the games, and then even the games seemed quick. That being said, I never took my eyes off the screen. I feel the way it was promoted made some of it seem cheesy, like the lines "may the odds be ever in your favor". Just such an over-promotion of that line that I cringed every time it was used.

I think it all goes back to whether it's better to read a book before you watch a movie. Because whichever route you take, you lose a little bit of the fun in the latter activity.

I always relate it to the Matrix. The Matrix blew me away with the story (and the special effects). Would I have been as blown away if I already read the book? No.

As good as the Game of Thrones series is, I have to think people watching it without having read the books are going to enjoy it a little bit more. There are some upcoming events in future seasons that will knock the socks off of non-readers. For the readers, we'll be like "eh, they did that pretty good", or "that was a great scene". But the shock value is gone.

Another good example are the Star Wars prequels. There were other reasons why the prequels weren't as good as the sequels. But one big reason is that there was no mystery. We went into three huge movies without hardly any suspense. We basically knew what was going to happen the whole time.

So for me, Hunger Games was a fun experience, but I wasn't blown away.

I think the only way to do the book justice would be to have a LOTR 3 and a half hour epic movie. But then they probably wouldn't have made 150 million dollars.

All in all though, a very solid flick, and I thought Lawrence did nail Katniss Everdeen.

I'd like to nail Jennifer Lawrence

 

[Exit 1]

Am I the only one that thinks the title of the book/movie is pretty dumb/uninspired?

Smoovy and Marvin will be sending you an invitation to join them in their tree house soon.

I had never heard of this thing until the weekend. Why is it the hunger games? Media would have you believe it is a hot-ish chick running around shooting people with a bow.

They all have a hunger for freedom. It's such a moving film. 18 stars.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Am I the only one that thinks the title of the book/movie is pretty dumb/uninspired?

Smoovy and Marvin will be sending you an invitation to join them in their tree house soon.

I had never heard of this thing until the weekend. Why is it the hunger games? Media would have you believe it is a hot-ish chick running around shooting people with a bow.

Of course they would. Hot chicks doing hot chick things brings in ticket revenue. The Games themselves as described in the books can last weeks, if memory serves, and natural causes was a leading cause of death. In addition, one of the setting setups that the author went into was the fabulous wealth of the ruling class and the starvation issues of the districts. (this is actually done very well in the movie, IMO).

Didn't see the movie, but in the book, Katniss' strategy was to get the heck out of the cornecopia as quickly as possible and to find a water source because the games could take so long. Also, the tribute that won the games got extra food supplies for their district for an entire year, this was a huge thing since most of the districts were poor.

 

[LAUNCH]

For those who said that they were disappointed by the violence/action in the movie: The Washington Post review that I read indicated that the director was in a tough spot because one of the themes of the book was the rejection of the colluseum/voyeristic view of violence. It's hard for a movie to reject the glorification of violence while at the same time making a violent film. So what it sounds like the movie lost (haven't seen it myself yet) was some of the more violent scenes from the book. It certainly is a tough line to walk.

Translation. "If we made the movie that was described in the book we could have lost a lot of money due to the graphic violence."

Yes, that would be a translation if a stupid person were translating it.

I would guess that you probably didn't read the books and you clearly don't understand the concept of mass marketing.

 

[Frostillicus]

Saw it. Liked it a lot. Take that, Marvin.

 

[Chairshot]

I just saw it the other day. I went in with an open mind since I've certainly enjoyed movies I didn't expect to in the past.

I felt it was a pretty average. Nothing horrible, certainly not bad, but I wasn't impressed either.

I felt like they made Katniss pretty unlikeable. I didn't find myself rooting for her at all. There seemed to be a number of fairly large plot holes, but nothing unforgivable, I guess.

I don't think I have any reason to see it again, but I didn't walk away hating life, either. My 16 year old cousin has seen it 3 times already and says it's the best movie she's ever seen. She also loved the Transformers movies, so evidently she and I aren't on the same wavelength there.

I get why it's made so much money, tho. They played it pretty perfectly to crush the younger demographic. The makers knew what they were doing in that regard, that's for sure.

 

[Premier]

Saw it and hated it. I get why teenage girls like it, but not sure why everybody else does.

 

[ArcticEdge]

Saw it and hated it. I get why teenage girls like it, but not sure why everybody else does.

Almost walked out of it.

 

[dickey moe]

Book, while a little overrated, was better than the film. The film felt rushed and didn't allow for any emotional connection to develop between the characters and the moviegoer.

 

[Tiger Fan]

Didn't read teh book and I enjoyed it. Didn't blow me away, but I was entertained.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I just saw it the other day. I went in with an open mind since I've certainly enjoyed movies I didn't expect to in the past.I felt it was a pretty average. Nothing horrible, certainly not bad, but I wasn't impressed either.I felt like they made Katniss pretty unlikeable. I didn't find myself rooting for her at all. There seemed to be a number of fairly large plot holes, but nothing unforgivable, I guess.I don't think I have any reason to see it again, but I didn't walk away hating life, either. My 16 year old cousin has seen it 3 times already and says it's the best movie she's ever seen. She also loved the Transformers movies, so evidently she and I aren't on the same wavelength there.I get why it's made so much money, tho. They played it pretty perfectly to crush the younger demographic. The makers knew what they were doing in that regard, that's for sure.

Katniss is a pretty unlikeable character. She only gets worse as the series goes along.

 

[guru_007]

Just going to go on record here that this movie is going to make boatloads.I have a preteen son, a mid-teen daughter and a wife that all want to go see this asap.It's going to attract a very wide range of audience, could see this being the highest grossing movie of the year (admittedly, I don't know what other movies are coming out, but the only anticipated release I could think of off the top of my head I think has a chance to do better will be "The Hobbit")

So far at $302M domestic, $460M world widehttp://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hungergames.htmThree weeks in

 

[TexanFan02]

Book, while a little overrated, was better than the film. The film felt rushed and didn't allow for any emotional connection to develop between the characters and the moviegoer.

Rushed? Jesus, the movie was about an hour longer than it should have been. Normally people complain when a movie strays too far from the book, but this one could have used some Hollywood license.

IMDB says all you need to know about this movie. The site scews young, so anytime anything like Twilight or the Transformers comes out, it shoots up to 9+ in the ratings, before it slowly comes back down. This movie is in the 7s.

 

[Chaka]

Book, while a little overrated, was better than the film. The film felt rushed and didn't allow for any emotional connection to develop between the characters and the moviegoer.

Rushed? Jesus, the movie was about an hour longer than it should have been. Normally people complain when a movie strays too far from the book, but this one could have used some Hollywood license.

IMDB says all you need to know about this movie. The site scews young, so anytime anything like Twilight or the Transformers comes out, it shoots up to 9+ in the ratings, before it slowly comes back down. This movie is in the 7s.

It's hanging at 7.7 on IMDB, 85% on Rottentomatoes all critics, 80% from "Top critics" and 86% from audience reviews. It hits only 67 on Metacritic despite the fact that 28 of the reviews are 70 or above and 14 reviews are 63 or below (The Wall Street Journal and New York Observer killed it with a 30 which I think is impacting that overall rating).It seems to be doing okay with it's critical response.

 

[TexanFan02]

Book, while a little overrated, was better than the film. The film felt rushed and didn't allow for any emotional connection to develop between the characters and the moviegoer.

Rushed? Jesus, the movie was about an hour longer than it should have been. Normally people complain when a movie strays too far from the book, but this one could have used some Hollywood license.

IMDB says all you need to know about this movie. The site scews young, so anytime anything like Twilight or the Transformers comes out, it shoots up to 9+ in the ratings, before it slowly comes back down. This movie is in the 7s.

It's hanging at 7.7 on IMDB, 85% on Rottentomatoes all critics, 80% from "Top critics" and 86% from audience reviews. It hits only 67 on Metacritic despite the fact that 28 of the reviews are 70 or above and 14 reviews are 63 or below (The Wall Street Journal and New York Observer killed it with a 30 which I think is impacting that overall rating).It seems to be doing okay with it's critical response.

Yeah. It's okay. Battle Royale was better.

 

[Chaka]

Book, while a little overrated, was better than the film. The film felt rushed and didn't allow for any emotional connection to develop between the characters and the moviegoer.

Rushed? Jesus, the movie was about an hour longer than it should have been. Normally people complain when a movie strays too far from the book, but this one could have used some Hollywood license.

IMDB says all you need to know about this movie. The site scews young, so anytime anything like Twilight or the Transformers comes out, it shoots up to 9+ in the ratings, before it slowly comes back down. This movie is in the 7s.

It's hanging at 7.7 on IMDB, 85% on Rottentomatoes all critics, 80% from "Top critics" and 86% from audience reviews. It hits only 67 on Metacritic despite the fact that 28 of the reviews are 70 or above and 14 reviews are 63 or below (The Wall Street Journal and New York Observer killed it with a 30 which I think is impacting that overall rating).It seems to be doing okay with it's critical response.

Yeah. It's okay. Battle Royale was better.

Okay. I liked Battle Royale too. 7.8 on IMDB, 86% from all critics on Rottentomatoes, no ratings for top critics, 90% from audience ratings. And it is unrated with Metacritic.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I just saw it the other day. I went in with an open mind since I've certainly enjoyed movies I didn't expect to in the past.I felt it was a pretty average. Nothing horrible, certainly not bad, but I wasn't impressed either.I felt like they made Katniss pretty unlikeable. I didn't find myself rooting for her at all. There seemed to be a number of fairly large plot holes, but nothing unforgivable, I guess.I don't think I have any reason to see it again, but I didn't walk away hating life, either. My 16 year old cousin has seen it 3 times already and says it's the best movie she's ever seen. She also loved the Transformers movies, so evidently she and I aren't on the same wavelength there.I get why it's made so much money, tho. They played it pretty perfectly to crush the younger demographic. The makers knew what they were doing in that regard, that's for sure.

Katniss is a pretty unlikeable character. She only gets worse as the series goes along.

I thought the movie was pretty good. I have no idea how they will make 2 & 3 into movies without significant rewriting of the main story. The third book in particular is a train-wreck.

 

[Snotbubbles]

I just saw it the other day. I went in with an open mind since I've certainly enjoyed movies I didn't expect to in the past.I felt it was a pretty average. Nothing horrible, certainly not bad, but I wasn't impressed either.I felt like they made Katniss pretty unlikeable. I didn't find myself rooting for her at all. There seemed to be a number of fairly large plot holes, but nothing unforgivable, I guess.I don't think I have any reason to see it again, but I didn't walk away hating life, either. My 16 year old cousin has seen it 3 times already and says it's the best movie she's ever seen. She also loved the Transformers movies, so evidently she and I aren't on the same wavelength there.I get why it's made so much money, tho. They played it pretty perfectly to crush the younger demographic. The makers knew what they were doing in that regard, that's for sure.

Katniss is a pretty unlikeable character. She only gets worse as the series goes along.

I thought the movie was pretty good. I have no idea how they will make 2 & 3 into movies without significant rewriting of the main story. The third book in particular is a train-wreck.

I think train-wreck is being overly nice.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I just saw it the other day. I went in with an open mind since I've certainly enjoyed movies I didn't expect to in the past.I felt it was a pretty average. Nothing horrible, certainly not bad, but I wasn't impressed either.I felt like they made Katniss pretty unlikeable. I didn't find myself rooting for her at all. There seemed to be a number of fairly large plot holes, but nothing unforgivable, I guess.I don't think I have any reason to see it again, but I didn't walk away hating life, either. My 16 year old cousin has seen it 3 times already and says it's the best movie she's ever seen. She also loved the Transformers movies, so evidently she and I aren't on the same wavelength there.I get why it's made so much money, tho. They played it pretty perfectly to crush the younger demographic. The makers knew what they were doing in that regard, that's for sure.

Katniss is a pretty unlikeable character. She only gets worse as the series goes along.

I thought the movie was pretty good. I have no idea how they will make 2 & 3 into movies without significant rewriting of the main story. The third book in particular is a train-wreck.

I think train-wreck is being overly nice.

Perhaps train-wreck loaded with toxic chemicals. Had I read it on anything other my iPad I would have thrown the book across the room when I finished it. I actually regretted reading any of the books by the time I finished the third.

 

[Marvin]

Saw it. Liked it a lot. Take that, Marvin.

You got me there, Kami.

 

[Spike]

For those who have seen it, how young is too young for children to see this?